Another purge I take it?

no, the channel is just haunted by the delet monster

Hunted.

It's a monthly thing, except most channels were overdue. Only temple and wrtng were done last time (and they've been done again to avoid having to remember a staggered schedule)

It's needed because I like to debate some more in-depth things in here. @Lupinate Excuse me, for saying I am still gasping at the Starbucks coffee company store's and their locations around the world. Yes, everything, will eventually look the same. Is this a good thing , or a bad thing?

Good for travelers - you always know where to eat if you can't stomach local cuisine.

The local Makudonaruldo's!

Why are you making discord be IRC
Discord isn't IRC

Have the official Athens IRC server, peeps can use hexchat

@retxirT As a regular traveler this is sorta true regarding chains. *However* taking part of the local is part of the mystique thereof.

If everywhere is the same, there is no point in travel

You go to different places to see what is unique about them, whatever it is that is unique.

Agreed.

What if you go somewhere else not because you want to go somewhere else, but because it's away from where you are?

What if you go somewhere else not because you want to go somewhere else, but because it's away from where you are?

What if you go somewhere else not because you want to go somewhere else, but because it's away from where you are?

Then frankly, youre a migrant, not a tourist.

If you go somewhere because you want to get away from where you are, but you dont want to change the culture youre in. You completely missed the concept of how your culture influences the society around you. Or you completely overestimated how far you need to travel.

wat

@Fuksias wonderfully cynical of you! I didn't get very far because of reasons X Y and Z. But the people whom broke the Dublin Treaty agreement, are only shooting themselves in the foot because compatibility in the environment you're in, means everything.

There's a Starbucks in Afghanistan. You can check it on Google maps. For the purpose of my introduction of, new level's of globalism. To discuss the anomalies and the changes. The only place in Europe without Starbucks has a sanction in it and that is Bosnia Herzegovina. So, I'm saying that there are still parts of Europe that are not even having money fairly distributed to it. There are no means for them to get jobs. So, when they assimilate , are they more important than those whom broke the Dublin Treaty agreement or are they breaking it also?

That Starbucks is gonna get fucking bombed tbh

Though shops may spread globally, all nations have their own twists to their local designs and buildings. Can't think of a city that doesn't have some feature that distinguishes it from the rest.

So Starbucks being ubiquitously present won't change borough market or other places in town.

@ETBrooD
Ill admit that was written based on more extreme examples in mind, and not all catching. There are always nuances.
Still, if you want to travel to get away from somewhere, i assumed a good reason for wanting to do so. A good reason means you also likely wont want to return any time soon, unless the situation changes.

I don't know, I just think vacationing for the sake of getting away from home for a while makes a lot of sense. Everyone has a different motivation.

Me for example, besides wanting to meet extended family, often I have no preferred location when I go on holiday.

@ETBrooD you should be given the freedom to travel. But, you have to apply for a visa , to help you have it for more than a vacation. This is the problem. I couldn't , and wouldn't wish ...

(Okay and you have to hold on for what I am about to tell you.)

Any harm to those whom I travel to. For example, the people whom joined ISIS. They were born in mostly European countries. They didn't go to Syria to have a vacation. They didn't have extended family.

They participated in war crimes. Created a refugee crisis. You name it, these guy's are the Nazi's of our time.

Do you think these people gave a crap about their surroundings, when they got to Syria?

Do you think they had an innovative western idea, to franchise Starbucks?

Did they create jobs for the people around them?

See, I know, Starbucks in a country gives people the idea to capitalise and invest.

We have the power to be equals. It's just, certain religions are unable to grasp the concept of the idea of equality and jobs.

Btw I love Bosnian people, it's a shame they don't have a Starbucks because it creates jobs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paE2w2pGk_I
@LmaoMoni

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snjXEM1ZgBY

@Fryan Republic debate ... What part of debate don't you understand?

```Debate```
noun 
 1... (a) serious discussion of a subject in which many people take part:

Education is the current focus of public debate.

How we proceed from here is a matter for debate.

Over the year we have had several debates aboutfuture policy.

More examples

The debate completely changed course after Liz made her speech.

The debate about food safety has engaged the whole nation.

She issued a challenge to her rival candidates to take part in a public debate.

The prison riots have sharpened the debate about how prisons should be run.

This proposal will almost certainly spark another countrywide debate about how to organize the school system.
verb
2....  to discuss a subject in a formalway:

In Parliament today, MPs debated the Finance Bill.

They had been debating for several hours without reaching a conclusion.

[ + question word ] The authorities debated whether to build a new car park.

[ T ] to try to make a decision about something:

[ + question word ] We debated whether to take the earliertrain.

I'm still debating what colour to paint the walls

I don't think the official definition of debate fully encompasses it's true definition:

A conversation between two or more individuals, or between one's self, in which two or more differing opinions are put forward in a rational coherent manner with the goal of convincing one side of the validity of the opinion of the other party.

Which, by the way, yes, would completely eliminate the utterly abysmal contemptible and embarrassing show that is 'debate contests' schools have

@Holo Cambridge dictionary are lacking the whole art of describing - rationality and reasoning. Hence the reason why people are struggling to debate. We do have some "far left"; they are known as skin heads to me, and they are also, known to, be irrational and do come across as unable to cohesively, say what they think. Nazis and Communism are both, in the same authoritarian battle on the left. The only reason why the Nazis are different, is due to their capitalist gain's and the dislike for Jews is different. Bolshevik people are pro - Jews and Nazis eliminated them from exsistence.

So, debate is an easier method for people to be exposed.

However , I was informed , about 2 years ago - the Antifa section in America are educated. So, they realise, they are creating a superincumbent juxtaposition on grand proportuons. One can assume, this is to rule, through creating chaos. On the other hand, they just may well be sado-masscists.

I have pondered on this whole , in experience to debate.

If you're a sado-masscist and you don't want to debate, then, your purpose would be to highlight other people's faults on the internet. Only the American , Antifa would blatantly pretend they were something they're not, because, they hide themselves with masks. So for Antifa deception is key to their exsistence right now. So, they battle it out on the internet and stooge themselves.

The problem is, when you look at places like New Zealand. Where they need conversation, they need to build some kind of international connection , to even learn to debate. The kiwis can't either and they weren't taught the standards in schools.

Now we are going into an age where anarchial feminista movements, have brainwashed governments, into thinking - hey we don't need to encourage anyone to debate . Shut the internet down. The government seem to be winning at the moment because, anarchy on the internet - has been the governor for a while.

@Holo wait for it.... as I am going to talk about the problem. As I know that I am anonymous, so, I can speak my mind on here. You cannot put a face to me, chase me around, try to ruin my life in anyway. It is virtually impossible for you to do that here. Thus, the art of debating, would perhaps be more advanced with all types of conclusions. Without people being deemed as hyposensitive. Just read this part of "Fudgebooks", new policies;

***Defining Hate Speech***

"The first challenge in stopping hate speech is defining its boundaries.

People come to Facebook to share their experiences and opinions, and topics like gender, nationality, ethnicity and other personal characteristics are often a part of that discussion. People might disagree about the wisdom of a country’s foreign policy or the morality of certain religious teachings, and we want them to be able to debate those issues on Facebook. But when does something cross the line into hate speech?

Our current definition of hate speech is anything that directly attacks people based on what are known as their “protected characteristics” — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, or serious disability or disease."

Albeit, I have argued before that we are not able to cultivate debate on the internet. Certainly not to these, harmonious levels like you see here on discord. Because, your job, face, where you live, e.t.c. is all exposed on facebook. When people finally are able to conduct a debate and really entertain the idea of arguing both sides of the coin. There we have rationality.

But at what point, in those word's, do you see a rational behaviour outcome?

what the fuck? @TEABAG!!!

Also hate speech doesn't exist, just really spicy insults

@Holo, when people try to control the content of what you mean, they miss the point. I think the point, and the plot of Facebook has been lost. And they just consider you as a, scientific social experiment.

Debates are only really useful for convincing the croud that is listening anyway.

Debating someone with the purpose of changing their mind doesnt work.

Yep. You can only change an open mind.

If someone is so full of energy that they're defending their viewpoints in a proper debate, then they're almost guaranteed to stick to their views.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-one-thing-we-can-count-on-these-are-strange-times-indeed

http://www.feedspot.com/?dadi=1#feed/f_8607/article/5340820822?dd=431152294380904

my definition of terrorism - someone who commits violence, on behalf of a political organization with a history of violence

so, lone wolf shooters are not terrorists in my opinion... anyone agree or disagree? it would make ANTIFA terrrorists

no

lone wolfs are terrorists, the only necessary qualifier is the use of terror against a community to push an agenda

There are different *types* of terrorists depending on the backing, but it is as Coolitic said. Regarding AntiFa as a domestic terrorist group, however, I tend to agree

I think the name of terrorist implies the definition

AntiFa is simply a terrorist group because they admit to using fear as a tactic

They intend to give terror and fear to drive of their opponents they deem "fascists."

@Coolitic the problem is govt uses it as an excuse to tack on extra charges... you commit any kind of felony, next thing you know, you're a terrorist

that doesn't change the definition of a terrorist

who created the definition?

whats wrong with just calling lone wolves, commiters of massacre?

they are, they're also terrorists

the solution is to prevent govts from using the label of terrorist to remove your rights

i dont see why we need to expand the definition of terrorist - it's authoritarian, it's using language for authoritarian ends, therefore orwellian

that is the default definition of terrorist, it's in the fucking name retard

i think the way to prevent govt removing rights is to more strictly and rigidly define the definition of terrorist

instead of actually telling the govt that they dont get to use that label as an excuse to remove your rights, you have the retarded idea of changing the definition?

someone who makes people feel scared shouldn't be it... it's too vague

hey i never said that shouldn't be done... the label shouldn't be used to remove rights either - but I think definitions are important, for legal reasons as well

I win!

@What Would Jack Conte Do? , I know that certain denominations of Christianity are apocalyptic. So, they can behave in a cult like manner over the misfortune of others. As it says so on the Bible. So, there are too many reasons why, this question , @What Would Jack Conte Do? but, they're not lone wolf, but, they took a little piece of what was said out of context and like any other opportunity of their belief; took it upon themselves. Like the guy from the Christchurch shootings. He travelled around the bad location's. How do we know, he's not apart of a cult?

And by the way @What Would Jack Conte Do? Britain and Europe removed their enemy of the country law's, because, of Europe. It is time to ask yourself whether or not they think treason law's are more effective, perhaps.

I don't think it stopped the IRA much but it reduced the other problems. Treason law's . Gave the country back it's fundamental right to make that decision.
By the way the new terrorist law's are an excuse for extra mistrust and extra insecurities because they can randomly pick on someone the government deems , as a terrorist. They may not necessarily be one. But then through the interrogation they may.

The definition of a terrorist is not necessary for law enforcement purposes

In recent years I've seen people citing Norway as an example of functioning democratic socialism. Well, I always doubted their claim, and my go-to response was that it's anecdotal evidence at best (selection bias). But perhaps pointing out Norway's natural resources makes for a stronger rebuttal:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/08/the-myth-of-democratic-socialism/

Plus, the lack of a connection between increasing socialism and wealth.

By the way it's the same with Austria. We're rich on natural resources.

I'd argue our high taxation is probably detrimental, but we don't notice the effects of that because we have all this natural wealth.

The more utopian your society already is, the larger amounts of socialism it can handle.

You're meant to cap it. Sorry, but, unless you have people working. Then they can't have the money. Simple as that. They have given away load's to refugees. But , then they kick them out the country. <:sargonfingerguns:568463117856669696> <:sargonmagaicon2:538676372726349824>

when will sargon leave UK forever? to what level will the tyranny increase before he does

never

he'll lead the revolution

Sargon will become the next Oliver Cromwell

If my memory of history is correct, things didn’t exactly end well for Cromwell, so I hope not.

Indeed. Fuck cromwell.

Question for everyone. If AOC is the horsewoman of famine, who would deserve the remaining titles from the rest of "The Squad"?

talib maybe war, idk the others though

Found a comment on the video that gives a good breakdown.
Omar is death for her stance towards terrorists and martyrs
Talib is war for her stance on Palestine and Hamas
Ayanna is famine because of black farmers (I'll admit I dont know enough about her to understand this reason)
And AOC is pestilence because shes and socialism is just cancer

whoreswoman**

@What Would Jack Conte Do?, I think he is one of many whom probably should seek political asylum.

Especially, since the media are making people subscribe to them , in order for us to read an informative piece of news. (Example below).

I think my biggest concern are those whom are silent. The silent majority whom are voting. Will perhaps be in danger, don't you think?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-attacks-uk-plot-farhad-salah-syria-prevent-threat-a9005886.html

The weird thing about that article if that the Independent is 1 step away from saying: Therefore the only solution is to let them fight abroad or kill them here now - but they haven't quite realized it.

@Comando I am actually relieved, I am not the only one whom, see's this all; bubble wrap ingestion of information; unfolding into another; ethical battle of tireless efforts vs logical reasoning, critical debate. All to which, most people , have been ingesting another, frequency. Some of which, they are too sensitive to call a spade a spade.

They have to put an intellectual spin on the failure's of their "open border's", theory. They have to admit there is evil in the world. Before they reach their consolidated conflicting conclusion.

Do people, feel, the looks that normal immigrants are recieving is uncomfortable ?

Is there a difference in the actions of these people?

I mean, these questions are now at the height of people's discussions in private . Which should have been public , to raise awareness and protect people.

Now what are your thoughts on this being: more vulnerable lives are going to be lost as a result of their benevolence?

I mean if you can call it benevolence. I like to address it that way because they've put the whole NGO'S into the picture. Then they dressed it up as such. What are your thoughts and theories?

Did they ever find Cromwell's head?

And tbh it went well for him for a while

When everyone starts killing each other in some kind of civil war to end the days.... at least it'll feel more real than the situation than we currently have

@Eccles I don't think you will have civil war. This is me rationalising the way things have transpired. You already have people murdering people, without, uprising . I mean, the weird thing about the last uprising was the riots of 2011.

A man got shot by the police, colour of the skin, mattered; as it wasn't really necessarily representing - a section of society . And they all joined in. Like a virtual signalling crazed weapon. Even though the dude was a drug dealer. The people whom joined in with those riots, didn't like the Olympics being held in London. So, they went and join in with people.

You fast forward to 2019, white man gets shot down by the cops. Everyone just shrugs their shoulder's. Even the flipping , far right. <:salt:501105964758466586>

So, I am saying it would take a MASSIVE CATALYST FOR PEOPLE to be motivated to rise up against things. So, I am not encouraging violence. I am saying, too many people, put up with a lot of garbage to get on in the UK. They have their WIFI, TV and they can catch the bus to work. Shits okay. They don't want change.

@Eccles and so the question is... Are people , whom are of a certain sub social class, capable of rioting on the scales we saw in 2011?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14436499

Then we are doomed to survive in a country with ever decreasing levels of freedom and prosperity.

I have already moved to the countryside and am doing my best to isolate myself from the world. It is desperately sad

No, they won't riot, and if they did it would be put down by force and nothing would be achieved

@PureEvilPie

Vicarious benevolence, would be a good way to put it. Get others to be benevolent on their behalf.